Just for the record, 'my arguement' in a nutshell is "thanks to the (unavoidable) welfare state, bottom feeder employers can pay non-living wages. Many times these employers are just as much leaches on the welfare system as some of the people who refuse to work. People who are gainfully employed should not need assistance."
Translation: you think some low-worth job should be worth a lot more. The problem with this is that it isn't. It ignores the real value. No, it is not a problem: no undervaluing occurs.
My translation of your ideas: Taxpayers and Charitable givers should continue to pay welfare to support the artifically low wages of bottom bracket employees.
Claiming that there is no undervaluing in our current wage scale shows that you have no experience (either first or second hand) of trying to make a living in the lowest of brackets, and you have no sympathy for those that do. Yet most likely, you consider yourself a Christian....intereresting....
It is just that the misguided legislators who push for "minimum wage" are misguided and callous. They do not care when people get fired as a result.
If this were true, then you could easily point to regular periods of massive unemployement that occur each time the minimum wage has been increased. It doesn't happen, like I said before the 'old excuse' was inflation.
You use [lose?] credibility by bringing up the bogus "neo-con" bogieman. The one good thing about inflation is that it makes the government "minimum wage" meaningless over time.
A Boogieman is a fictional idea of children, while "Neoconservatism" is desciptive of a political leaning, members of which hold the same views that you do, including your argument that even minor raises in the minimum wage cause unemployment. Me, I'm Progressive, thanks for encouraging me to look up neoconservative, it was a good read, at the very least.
we don't allow (well, at least many) people to starve in the streets...
Yet, the minimum wage encourages this, by forcing companies to fire people.
True, a completely unreasonable minimum wage will cause economic problems, but the worst that a resonable minimum wage will (generally) do is cause the price of the goods or service to be slightly increased. In fact Inflation (not starvation) is usually used as the primary argument against a minimum wage, but with inflation at unusual lows, your arguement has become 'in vogue' with the neo conservatives. Don't worry, as the federal defict continues to grow, inflation will make the 'more logical' arguement more fearsome.
You get rid of these problems by getting government out of it entirely.
The government only controls one part of the welfare system. Church and well minded Civic groups control the other parts. As long as there are good people out there, there will always be some of the 'social problems' associated with a welfare state. One of those social problems is a tendancy to undervalue the work of the people at the 'bottom' of the labor market. I dare you to try to raise a family on $5.25/ hour without private, and governement assistance, it's impossiable! So what we are doing is publicly paying a subsitiy to the few 'employers' out there who are willing to operate at the lowest end of the market, practically driving their staff to the wefare offices, essentually enriching themselves, at the public's expense. There are otherwise good employers at the low ends of the market who make an effort at trying to pay a living wage, but are unable to compete on price. A minimum wage creates a floor for labor costs. which is otherwise driven down by public and private assistance.
Welfare is a system of public charity, control and appeasement. No matter how much an Anarchist wants it, the welfare state is here to stay, otherwise we risk very high rates of crime, and perhaps even insurrection, neither of which are good for business.
Can't we discuss economic effects without resorting to comical and false ideological/partisan insults?
...primarily a government disincentive for keeping people employed in low-value jobs
Apparently you don't think so. BTW, how much do you pay for making your tin foil hats.
True, but you fail to understand the effects on society which are caused by a low min wage. There are two kinds of people net tax users and net tax payers. People below a certian wage they are net tax users. We could eliminate all of the low wage subsisities which allow for a low 'market driven' wage, but the body count would be way too high even for (well, at least most) Republicians. A 'fair' minimum wage is part of the social contract which we don't allow (well, at least many) people to starve in the streets, and keeps unethical business owners from exploiting the wefare system in this country.
Hey I get all my system administration skills from running gags found on Slashdot! For example my firewall only blocks IP packets with the "evil bit" set; This is far more effecient.
All in all, I believe the change in searching pattern may more likely be caused by returned results.
I still liked the research's idea
..said of the findings. "Remember when cars came out, and people would say, 'Wow, we're going for a ride today!' Now they just go for a ride."
So, I guess sex is that easy to find, why are we still having so much trouble?!
In addtion to your point about the crap that is returned by a generic search for 'sex', What I really think is happening is that the volume of searches is going up, while people are becoming familiar with 'their favorite' hotspots and they don't need to look.
It was not what I would call "perfectly capable", until we dropped another $100 to upgrade the memory from 256MB to 768MB
A hundred dollars to triple the memory? Personally, I don't want a machine with less than 512 MB, but 256 MB is more than ok for most, who mostly browse the Internet.
WinXP is so advanced it was taking 3-5 minutes to log in and out and reboot.
The windows XP systems which I have worked on the reboot time is a only a couple of minutes. I would say, less than 3 minutes, as someone who has nerviously watched Solaris server reboot, I'd say that is excellent. Don't worry, instant on computers will come, but we aren't quite there yet.
Oh, and then there was the several hours spent installing SP2, post-SP2 critical updates, updating the anti-virus software and configuring the firewall and other safety checks to try and keep the non-computer-oriented family owners safe from the Internet.
Then use Linux. I wasn't talking about 'the total cost of ownership', just the initial cost of purchasing one from Dell and Gateway vs. other PC manufactures.
And haven't you read all the horror stories of cheapo Dell computers dying left and right?
No, No I haven't but I have heard of some complaints about thier Customer Service, That's a nice thing about using the internet, you can back up your facts by adding a hyperlink, you should try it sometime.
That's why I point most people to an entirely different place [Apple.com] for choosing a new family or personal computer. They can't compete on the initial price point, but 4 years down the line you will still have a usable computer with amazing capabilities.
Apples are ok, so, why did you buy a PC in the first place (you used the term 'we' as part of the price paid), seems like you don't even follow your own advice. The cheapest apple only has 256 MB, and it costs $75 to just double it! I haven't rebooted an Apple in a couple of years, but I am fairly certain that it isn't instantly on.
...then there was the several hours spent installing SP2...
I just bought a new 120 GB Hard drive, and completely reinstalled windows, (yes I kept it off the net until I was ready to hit Windows update and I have a hardware firewall, which I suggest for everyone), and it only took me less than 4 hours total. BTW, for the most part you don't need to be around when the PC is doing the 'update dance', go outside, do the dishes, make love to your wife, wash the car, do the laundry. Also, run Spybot -Search and Destroy when you are finished. Also, 'my other computer is Linux'.
I don't know which Dell and Gateway your talking about, but the Dell and Gateway which I know introduced competitive pricing to the PC market. They gobbled up a large percentage with aggressive pricing, 'old school' large manufacturers and white box manufactures alike have had a hard time competeting with them.
I don't know where you are getting your prices from (maybe 1996) but Dell will sell a perfectly cabable machine for less than $500, with a 15" flat panel monitor!. Ala carte, a 15" flat panel will cost one $200 by itself. Personally, I still build my own, but when someone asks for help choosing a PC, I just point them at Dell.
if google could make more money off selling private data and bombarding us with pop-ups even though people would walk away they would do it
That's the 'screw the future approach', we want profits now! approach. Sometimes I am suprised that it's not taught in business school, it sure seems like it is.
Basically im saying its just luck that google happens to make the most money off being nice.
It's that 'nice' approach to advertising which got them the top search engine spot to start with, generally relevant ads which don't try to take over your pc, or trick you into clicking them. The search engine tech is impressive, but 'being nice' works for them, when I used Yahoo! I almost never clicked on an ad, but with Google, I am willing to at least check them out. I don't want my browser window to look like Times Square, or the Las Vegas strip, with each ad trying to outdo the visual impression of the last. I perfer the short 'classified' type ad on google, something that tells you how they will fullfil you stated need. Some people call this 'being nice', I call it knowing what your customer wants and consistantly deliverying it.
Which TV series are you talking about? The Adventures of Superman stared George Reeves (how's that for old) long before Christopher Reeve had the role. I am just old enough to remember a time before the last 'crop' of Superman movies (look up Superman on IMDB, hell, I didn't know there were so many titles), when the old 50's show was in heavy syndication. I saw the Lois and Clark (and for that matter smallville) as fair and worthy tellings of the Superman story. George Reeve was my 'first superman', I quess that since he was long dead by the time I saw the show, I am more open to other 'flavors' of the story.
Becoming less careful about computer security because you have anti-virus software is something like driving less carefully because you believe that airbags will keep you safe in the event of a car accident.
But Air Bags can save your life, I don't feel right riding in a car without a full set. While some people who use Anti-virus may use their systems uwisely, I however suspect that most people who take the time to install, buy and update the license, are more aware of the problem, not less. The real problem is people who don't care.
The thing that worries me the most about Anti-virus is automatic updates, timed system scans, with unattended repairs, just think that if the update server was compromised (yea, I know *really* far fetched). A black hat could change the definition to read "destroy all.exe files" and/or.jpg, etc. I have my calendar remind me once a month to do Anti-virus and Spybot system scans, but I will not set them to automatic.
TCP automaticly checks the packet (at the transport layer), UDP makes the application layer handle error detection/ correction. In particular for an application which may contain both voice and text data, UDP, might, make sense. Voice and video packets wouldn't need to be checked, but data messages (including text) could be checked by the application. One of the great misconceptions about a UDP application is that it will lose packets, but the reality is that the UDP application may allow packets to be lost. The developer can put as much or as little error checking and correction as needed. TCP was designed to be extra careful with an inconsistant link over a variety of applications, UDP was built without any error checking for flexability.
However, when dealing with text messaging, dropped packets/packets that arrive in the wrong order mean the conversation doesn't make any sense.
Perhaps it's just me but most IM conversations don't seem to make a lot of sense anyways. lol
UDP means that the application is reponsiable for delivery. When a TCP message fails in transit, it has to wait for the timeout. 2. Bandwidth overhead introduced by error correction/checking (UDP is the wrong protocol)
For voice applications UDP is the correct protocol because it's quick. 3. Central server still needed to record IP addresses to pass to clients.
This is the 'big' issue. I there are ways around it, such as the 'super node' concept used in distributed file sharing. Also, I've got an idea of my own... (patent pending!) 4. Massive bandwidth outlay on connection. (Modem user has to send buddy image to all 100 buddies online).
As oppossed to the modem user which would need to download all 100 buddy images from that *lovable* central server.
5. It wouldnt work throught a NAT firewall.
I am not sure which firewall you use, but I have never seen one that won't support UDP. 6. You wouldnt know if you had become disconnected.
Sure this is a bit of an issue, but as more poeple get on stable broad band connections, this will become less of an issue. 7. You couldnt log on from any machine (ala msn, icq), because no central server to give you your contacts list. It would also mean that no central server will have your contacts, sure you might have to carry your own buddy list info, but then you would also be the only one responsiable for securing it. UDP is an underated protocol, it has been eclipsed by TCP mainly becuase (IMHO) TCP is easier. For an IM application which incorporates voice along with text, I believe that it would be a good choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Claiming that there is no undervaluing in our current wage scale shows that you have no experience (either first or second hand) of trying to make a living in the lowest of brackets, and you have no sympathy for those that do. Yet most likely, you consider yourself a Christian....intereresting....
If this were true, then you could easily point to regular periods of massive unemployement that occur each time the minimum wage has been increased. It doesn't happen, like I said before the 'old excuse' was inflation. A Boogieman is a fictional idea of children, while "Neoconservatism" is desciptive of a political leaning, members of which hold the same views that you do, including your argument that even minor raises in the minimum wage cause unemployment. Me, I'm Progressive, thanks for encouraging me to look up neoconservative, it was a good read, at the very least.Welfare is a system of public charity, control and appeasement. No matter how much an Anarchist wants it, the welfare state is here to stay, otherwise we risk very high rates of crime, and perhaps even insurrection, neither of which are good for business.
Apparently you don't think so. BTW, how much do you pay for making your tin foil hats.Hey I get all my system administration skills from running gags found on Slashdot! For example my firewall only blocks IP packets with the "evil bit" set; This is far more effecient.
In addtion to your point about the crap that is returned by a generic search for 'sex', What I really think is happening is that the volume of searches is going up, while people are becoming familiar with 'their favorite' hotspots and they don't need to look.
I don't know where you are getting your prices from (maybe 1996) but Dell will sell a perfectly cabable machine for less than $500, with a 15" flat panel monitor!. Ala carte, a 15" flat panel will cost one $200 by itself. Personally, I still build my own, but when someone asks for help choosing a PC, I just point them at Dell.
Which TV series are you talking about? The Adventures of Superman stared George Reeves (how's that for old) long before Christopher Reeve had the role. I am just old enough to remember a time before the last 'crop' of Superman movies (look up Superman on IMDB, hell, I didn't know there were so many titles), when the old 50's show was in heavy syndication. I saw the Lois and Clark (and for that matter smallville) as fair and worthy tellings of the Superman story. George Reeve was my 'first superman', I quess that since he was long dead by the time I saw the show, I am more open to other 'flavors' of the story.
The thing that worries me the most about Anti-virus is automatic updates, timed system scans, with unattended repairs, just think that if the update server was compromised (yea, I know *really* far fetched). A black hat could change the definition to read "destroy all .exe files" and/or .jpg, etc. I have my calendar remind me once a month to do Anti-virus and Spybot system scans, but I will not set them to automatic.
Perhaps it's just me but most IM conversations don't seem to make a lot of sense anyways. lol
1. No feedback on message delivery.
UDP means that the application is reponsiable for delivery. When a TCP message fails in transit, it has to wait for the timeout.
2. Bandwidth overhead introduced by error correction/checking (UDP is the wrong protocol)
For voice applications UDP is the correct protocol because it's quick.
3. Central server still needed to record IP addresses to pass to clients. This is the 'big' issue. I there are ways around it, such as the 'super node' concept used in distributed file sharing. Also, I've got an idea of my own... (patent pending!)
4. Massive bandwidth outlay on connection. (Modem user has to send buddy image to all 100 buddies online). As oppossed to the modem user which would need to download all 100 buddy images from that *lovable* central server.
5. It wouldnt work throught a NAT firewall. I am not sure which firewall you use, but I have never seen one that won't support UDP.
6. You wouldnt know if you had become disconnected. Sure this is a bit of an issue, but as more poeple get on stable broad band connections, this will become less of an issue.
7. You couldnt log on from any machine (ala msn, icq), because no central server to give you your contacts list.
It would also mean that no central server will have your contacts, sure you might have to carry your own buddy list info, but then you would also be the only one responsiable for securing it.
UDP is an underated protocol, it has been eclipsed by TCP mainly becuase (IMHO) TCP is easier. For an IM application which incorporates voice along with text, I believe that it would be a good choice.